Paranoid or protective? Parents bemused by threat of jail for leaving children home alone

Julia May

Despite declining crime rates in most Western societies, parenting experts say anxiety around children's safety has never been higher. The term “nanny state” is no longer just metaphorical: in Victoria this week, penalties for leaving children under 16 unattended are set to increase, with the government proposing a doubling of the maximum jail sentence, from three to six months. Fines will increase by two-thirds, to $3690.

Though triggered by a rise in ambulance call-outs for young children left in cars, the penalties have a wider application for kids and teens left at home, walking the streets alone or catching public transport unsupervised. A spokeswoman for the Minister for Children and Childhood Development, Wendy Lovell, says the offence of “leaving a child without adequate supervision for an unreasonable amount of time, without making reasonable provisions for the child” is determined on a “case by case basis and subject to individual circumstances”.

Between January 2010 and December 2012, 76 people were sentenced for leaving children unattended, according to the department. The spokeswoman was unable to break down the figures by context.

So what are parents to think - and do?

For Lenore Skenazy, a New York-based speaker and author of Free-Range Kids, this is government grandstanding, symptomatic of a paranoia about children’s safety. “It’s part of the overarching belief that any moment a child is not directly supervised, generally by the mother or the school, they are in grave danger,” she says. “I know that every year children die in cars, but actually more children die getting run over by cars [and in car accidents]. The time a mother is most guilty of putting her child in danger is the minute she decides to drive the child anywhere.”

Skenazy wants children to be as independent as possible: to walk or ride to school alone at around age seven; to go to the playground alone at age nine, and to head into town unaccompanied when they’re mature enough. Her teenage son was at Times Square with a friend when she spoke to Fairfax Media. “If you have a hysterical population who thinks children are in constant danger, the courts are going to be interpreting it like that too. If you’re arresting parents because something bad could happen, well you can jail anybody. Right now my son is out with another kid and they’re in Manhattan and it’s dark. They could be murdered. They won’t be, but should you be jailing me?”

Advertisement

Professor Susan Sawyer is the director for adolescent health at Melbourne's Royal Children’s Hospital. She supports punitive action for people who leave children in cars. “Given the rapid risk of fatalities it’s very appropriate that leaving children in cars is illegal in every state in Australia. I’m fully supportive of that.”

It’s deciding when to grant children more independence that tensions and ambiguities arise. “The more challenging side is for parents to balance those notions of providing what we think of as scaffolding – physical and emotional safety and wellbeing – while knowing that life is a really important teacher,” Professor Sawyer says. “We can talk about the average ages that kids might do particular things but there are adolescents who are going to handle more responsibility at a certain age than others. This is a space where a one-sized-fits-all approach is not helpful. We need to support parents in that tricky balance. My personal opinion is that legislation is not helpful.” Education that empowers parents to engage with their teens on decision-making, like the Raising Children’s Network website, she says, is more useful.

Majella Lewis, a teacher from Ballarat, has three children, each with different aspirations for independence. Her eldest daughter, Sophie, 18, "was always pushing the boundaries, always wanting more independence", which sometimes created conflict. Lewis's son, Abe, 16, doesn't mind being alone at home, but her youngest, Chelsea, 15, is uncomfortable being home alone or catching public transport by herself. Chelsea says the combination of living out of town, and a past house burglary, makes her feel a bit on edge. Fortunately, her parents and grandfather are constantly around and contactable, but other kids she knows must get themselves around and stay home alone because of their parents' work.

"I have one friend whose dad works two jobs and her mum works full-time as well," Chelsea says. "Her brother rides home and can be there until 10pm on his own. He's only nine. He's fairly confident but I guess he has to be."

Majella Lewis says it's a delicate balance. "You don't want to stifle them; you want them to be independent and move into the world with confidence. I know Chelsea's not comfortable being by herself in certain situations and I don't want her to be scared, however I want her to develop some independence, so it's about taking baby-steps." (One of those baby-steps happened the day Fairfax Media arranged to photograph Chelsea: she was planning to travel to Melbourne from Ballarat with her friends for the day - and hadn't yet asked her parents.)

Professor Sawyer says introducing independence gradually works well. "One of the nice examples is graduated licences" - where teens gain their learner's permit, build up supervised experience on the road, and obtain a probationary licence at 18. "But even then it doesn't mean they can get in the car and do all the same things as a more experienced driver."

Lewis says most parents use common sense and that she takes little notice of laws pertaining to supervision. "I look at rules like that and think they only count for those extreme parents who leave kids in cars when they go to the casino. I don't think it's for the everyday person, but equally I don't know if this law is trying to make everyday parents like us more aware. Perhaps it is."

Daryl Higgins, deputy director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, says in most areas of social policy, legislation is matched with education. He points to drinking as one policy that gets the balance right. “We don’t just say the rule or law is that you can’t serve alcohol to someone under 18. We provide education about the harms from drinking. We speak to young people in schools. We ban the promotion of alcohol at sporting events.”

In the area of parental supervision, however, he is not aware of any educational programs that support the legislation.

Yet he defends the much-maligned nanny state, arguing as social support systems fail to keep pace with the changing face of family life, there is an important role for the government. “Cost of living pressures, the changing nature of work and work availability, the location of work - all these kinds of factors go into disrupting what otherwise might be a sense of communal responsibility for the upbringing and the safety of children.”

If people are investigated for possible breaches of the law, taking the context into account is essential, Dr Higgins argues. Intent is important, particularly in cases where, for example, poorer parents want to provide a safe environment for their children but don't have the resources for formal childcare and are forced to leave them unsupervised for periods of time.

Warren Cann, chief executive of the Parenting Research Centre, says while some major behavioural changes - such as using seatbelts in cars - are triggered by legislation, education campaigns are often more effective.

"Think of SIDS. Putting kids on their backs is universal practice, and didn't need to be legislated," Mr Cann says.

"We don't put parents in jail if their kids are caught on the beach without a sunhat."